A recent report by the American Energy Institute (AEI) has shed light on the Environmental Law Institute's Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) and its alleged impact on the legal system. The AEI report accuses CJP of corruptly influencing judges and promoting what it calls 'climate cult alarmism.'
The report claims that CJP, under the guise of providing neutral climate science education to judges, is actually steering them towards a specific viewpoint. It alleges that CJP is closely tied to public plaintiffs suing energy providers over climate change damages and has trained over 2,000 judges.
In response, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) has defended CJP, stating that it is a non-partisan educational initiative that offers evidence-based scientific curriculum to judges. ELI denies taking stances on cases or influencing judicial outcomes.
The report highlights a case in Hawaii where fossil fuel companies faced legal action over climate change effects. The AEI report questions the transparency of CJP's ties to plaintiffs and its funding sources, suggesting potential ethical concerns.
The U.S. Judicial Conference has cautioned judges about potential inappropriate influences from external programs. The AEI report accuses CJP of concealing its partnerships with plaintiffs and creating an appearance of bias in judicial education.
Overall, the AEI report characterizes CJP's activities as an attack on the rule of law and calls for greater transparency and oversight in judicial education programs.
